Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Justin Fisher's avatar

    To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…

  2. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  3. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  4. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  5. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  6. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  7. Mark's avatar

Shill for the Discovery [sic] Institute Debates Distinguished Legal Scholar

Here.  My colleague, Professor Laycock, is perhaps the nation’s preeminent academic authority on the law of religious liberty, who is unusual in having represented almost all sides in religious liberty cases (he was the primary drafter of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for example, but also represented a group of clergy contending that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is, indeed, unconstitutional).  It is obviously a nice public relations coup for the Discovery [sic] Institute when a member of its stable of shills for Intelligent Design Creationism gets to share a forum with someone of this level of scholarly and professional distinction.  Their representative on this occasion is none other than Francis Beckwith, whose intellectual and philosophical dishonesty we have encountered before (here and here, for example).  Many of his standard ploys and lies are already on display, and I may comment on them at greater length next week.  The basic issue, though, about the constitutionality of teaching Intelligent Design Creationism is pretty simple:  since there is no secular purpose in teaching it (since there are no scientific arguments in support of it), it is obviously barred by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Designed with WordPress